Importers Challenge CGST Rule 96(10) Restrictions on Advance Authorization License Rebate Claims

HC reviewed a challenge to CGST Rule 96(10) challenging its prohibition on rebate claims for goods imported under Advance Authorization License. Petitioner argued the sub-rule violated IGST Act Section 16 and CGST Act Section 54. Court issued notice to respondents, allowed draft amendment, and tagged the matter with another pending case, scheduling further hearing to examine the legal validity of the contested rule.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to sub Rule (10) of Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, 2017 denying rebate claim for importing goods under Advance Authorization License.

Analysis:
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking to challenge sub Rule (10) of Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, 2017, which denies the option of rebate claim for importing goods under Advance Authorization License. The petitioner argued that this denial is ultra vires the Section 16 of the IGST Act read with Section 54 of the CGST. The prayers sought by the petitioner included issuing a writ of mandamus to strike down the said sub rule on various grounds, such as violation of statutory provisions and constitutional rights.

Prayers Sought:
1. Issue a writ of mandamus striking down Sub Rule (10) of Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, 2017.
2. Direct the respondents not to adjudicate the impugned notice dated 9.11.2022.
3. Seek ad-interim ex-parte relief and any other ad interim relief deemed fit by the Court.
4. Claim costs of the petition.
5. Request for further relief as warranted by the circumstances of the case.

Court Proceedings:
The Court allowed the draft amendment and directed that necessary amendment shall be carried out immediately. The Court heard Mr. Anand Naninawati, the learned advocate for the petitioner. Notice was issued to the respondents, returnable on 15th February, 2023. The matter was tagged with Special Civil Application No. 11363 of 2020. The Court noted that in the lead matter, the pleadings were completed. For the upcoming hearing on 13th February, 2023, the petitioner's advocate was advised to request an adjournment for two days due to multiple matters scheduled for 15th February, 2023.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal arguments presented by the petitioner, the prayers sought, and the court proceedings, providing a comprehensive overview of the case before the High Court.

---